Results of our little survey:

• The modern research cycle
• The Open Science movement
• Incorporating workflow thinking into your research

• Data management plan
• Publication plan
• Dissemination plan

• What do you collect?
• How do you treat it?
• How will you keep/share it?

• Where do you plan to publish?
• What part of the project will make it into which publications?

• How will you present your research?
• In which channels?

Charlie Chaplin, The Floorwalker (1916, Lone Star Corporation)

[W]e have two major points to consider. First, due to a lack of adequate incentives in the reward structure of professional science […] actual replication attempts are rarely carried out. Second, to the extent that they are carried out, it can be well-nigh impossible to say conclusively what they mean, whether they are “successful” (i.e., showing similar, or apparently similar, results to the original experiment) or “unsuccessful” (i.e., showing different, or apparently different, results to the original experiment).

Earp, B. and D. Trafimov (2015) Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology

This is the whole abstract of an interesting paper in the field of genomic biology:

The spreadsheet software Microsoft Excel, when used with default settings, is known to convert gene names to dates and floating-point numbers. A programmatic scan of leading genomics journals reveals that approximately one-fifth of papers with supplementary Excel gene lists contain erroneous gene name conversions.

Ziemann, M., Y. Eren, A. El-Osta (2016) Gene name errors are widespread in the scientific literature. Genome Biology 17:177

Here are some rows of some of the columns:

• Only problem: I don’t know where I put the codebook!

[accountability, reproducibility, transparency]

• From simple to

• There are powerful, efficient tools at our disposal
• There is a learning curve of varying steepness
• Maybe